Eon, Germany’s biggest utility by sales, is reviewing its earnings forecasts for 2013 after warning that gas-fired power stations have become “barely profitable to operate” because of weak economic conditions and a surge in renewable energy.

The global energy map is changing, with potentially far-reaching consequences for energy markets and trade. It is being redrawn by the resurgence in oil and gas production in the United States and could be further reshaped by a retreat from nuclear power in some countries, continued rapid growth in the use of wind and solar technologies and by the global spread of unconventional gas production. Perspectives for international oil markets hinge on Iraq’s success in revitalising its oil sector. If new policy initiatives are broadened and implemented in a concerted effort to improve global energy efficiency, this could likewise be a game-changer. On the basis of global scenarios and multiple case studies, this World Energy Outlook assesses how these new developments might affect global energy and climate trends over the coming decades. It examines their impact on the critical challenges facing the energy system: to meet the world’s ever-growing energy needs, led by rising incomes and populations in emerging economies; to provide energy access to the world’s poorest; and to bring the world towards meeting its climate change objectives.

Taking all new developments and policies into account, the world is still failing to put the global energy system onto a more sustainable path. Global energy demand grows by more than one-third over the period to 2035 in the New Policies Scenario (our central scenario), with China, India and the Middle East accounting for 60% of the increase. Energy demand barely rises in OECD countries, although there is a pronounced shift away from oil, coal (and, in some countries, nuclear) towards natural gas and renewables. Despite the growth in low- carbon sources of energy, fossil fuels remain dominant in the global energy mix, supported by subsidies that amounted to $523 billion in 2011, up almost 30% on 2010 and six times more than subsidies to renewables. The cost of fossil-fuel subsidies has been driven up by higher oil prices; they remain most prevalent in the Middle East and North Africa, where momentum towards their reform appears to have been lost. Emissions in the New Policies Scenario correspond to a long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 °C.

The tide turns for US energy flows

Energy developments in the United States are profound and their effect will be felt well beyond North America – and the energy sector. The recent rebound in US oil and gas production, driven by upstream technologies that are unlocking light tight oil and shale gas resources, is spurring economic activity – with less expensive gas and electricity prices giving industry a competitive edge – and steadily changing the role of North America in global energy trade. By around 2020, the United States is projected to become the largest global oil producer (overtaking Saudi Arabia until the mid-2020s) and starts to see the impact of new fuel-efficiency measures in transport. The result is a continued fall in US oil imports, to the extent that North America becomes a net oil exporter around 2030. This accelerates the switch in direction of international oil trade towards Asia, putting a focus on the security of the strategic routes that bring Middle East oil to Asian markets. The United States, which currently imports around 20% of its total energy needs, becomes all but self-sufficient in net terms – a dramatic reversal of the trend seen in most other energy- importing countries.

I do own EON stock, bought this year, and I just read of the mighty fall of it today. Over -10% is nothing too usual for a days work. I will have to give it a closer read to draw my conclusions. So far I tend to buy as I don't think that much has changed since I have done my in-depth analysis. Thanks for the link.

__________________
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

I do own EON stock, bought this year, and I just read of the mighty fall of it today. Over -10% is nothing too usual for a days work. I will have to give it a closer read to draw my conclusions. So far I tend to buy as I don't think that much has changed since I have done my in-depth analysis. Thanks for the link.

"Eon, Germany’s biggest utility by sales, is reviewing its earnings forecasts for 2013 after warning that gas-fired power stations have become “barely profitable to operate” because of weak economic conditions and a surge in renewable energy. "

The interesting question for me still is, why does EON and the other three of the "Mighty Four" (G4) do not have a larger share of renewable energy (=profit); amost 30% of the electricity net production comes from reneables, the G4 have only a share <7%. Could it be that EON is a nice example of faulty strategy, of a organisation that was used to a simple business model and then became lazy?

Look at how renewable energies are being subsided; a fixed prices system.

Small providers can deliver renewable energy electricity into one of the big four's nets and get a high, fixed price for it.

The big providers can't do this with their own net, as they would pay themselves. In the end, renewable energy electricity in their own area would have the actual price, and they love their old nuclear powerplants with all their thoroughly hidden and externalised costs sooo much.

Moreover, it doesn't make sense to go to another big provider's area and infuse renewable energy electricity there. They could take revenge and do the same in your area, and there you're effectively back at the original case of selling to yourself.

What they have is for PR and for having competence cores about the stuff.

Look at how renewable energies are being subsided; a fixed prices system.

Small providers can deliver renewable energy electricity into one of the big four's nets and get a high, fixed price for it.

The big providers can't do this with their own net, as they would pay themselves. In the end, renewable energy electricity in their own area would have the actual price, and they love their old nuclear powerplants with all their thoroughly hidden and externalised costs sooo much.

Moreover, it doesn't make sense to go to another big provider's area and infuse renewable energy electricity there. They could take revenge and do the same in your area, and there you're effectively back at the original case of selling to yourself.

What they have is for PR and for having competence cores about the stuff.

It is certainly interesting how the variable incentives for renewable energy influence the market behavior. This is of course the E.ON CEO speaking, but it seems the alignment of the incentives is a problem as well as the insufficient integration of the national and European grids.

No surprise that he is against the forced intake at a fixed price of every watt of renewable power and there are good arguments on his side. Said that this principle was the key to quickly unlocked the market for green energy. From a owners point of view and a fan of technological progress I hope that the increasing competivness of the renewable sector will lead to a decrease of the fixed price and that E.ON is able to increase it's earnings per share.

P.S: I did buy a considerable amount of E.ON stock today as I think the value is still good and that price was certainly attractive.

__________________
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

Look at how renewable energies are being subsided; a fixed prices system.

Small providers can deliver renewable energy electricity into one of the big four's nets and get a high, fixed price for it.

The big providers can't do this with their own net, as they would pay themselves. In the end, renewable energy electricity in their own area would have the actual price, and they love their old nuclear powerplants with all their thoroughly hidden and externalised costs sooo much.

Moreover, it doesn't make sense to go to another big provider's area and infuse renewable energy electricity there. They could take revenge and do the same in your area, and there you're effectively back at the original case of selling to yourself.

What they have is for PR and for having competence cores about the stuff.

But they clearly understimated the dynamic of the developement and now try to catch up with off-shore wind, the only production sector where their size matters.

There was no real attempt by the large utilties to change from energy producer to energy manager, they have know-how in this field, IMHO a lost oppportunity.

Energy production and nets are different aspects and business sectors, the main issue at the moment is that the G4 deliver electricity at a price that is for consumer and small industry higher than the production costs with PV, they clarly calculate with the laziness of the consumers.

So everbody who owns roofage and has a chance to consume electricity during daytime has a nice incentive to build PV, the business model will change from investment to optimizing self consumption. Next year we will see a low PV build, but this will improve in the next years. Each GW PV and on-shore wind destroy demand from the G4.

As to EON analysis, I have not done any homework but, I have read that ~35 percent of Euro energy comes from renewables and this figure is set to rise significantly over the next couple of decades. Geopolitics are very tough, and I suspect this is part of what is driving this significant effort towards self supplying energy via renewables. Fortunately debt is cheap at this time and EON appears to be able to sustain it's 35 billion Euro debt (or so) and I note that it has ~150 billion Euro in assets. Tangible book value per share is 7.76 Euro today, today's price at the moment is 14.27 Euro, the 52 week low is 14.05 Euro, around 14.3 million shares have changed hands today, and approximately 75,000 employees generated ~140 billion Euros in revenue last year. I have not compared these numbers with the typical utility in German or outside of Germany (such as EDF in France). Out of 38 analysts covering the stock, 13 say buy (I usually ignore these recommendations).

Well of course I'm in no position to know that. In general I follow the framework set up by Graham and Buffet and try to stick to it, which is surprisingly hard. Grahams filters work pretty well to sort get stocks which deserve a closer look, but he is arguably a bit too restrictive on book value.

You are also using pretty much the same ressources as I do, I have completely given up to listen to 'insider' information. Apart from the facts and the experience there is now a little nice story of a friend of mind. He became one of Americas 1% or less and sold a year or two ago part of the stock of the company in which he worked at less then 1/3 of the price I got only a month or so ago. He had of course far far more of it and invested considerable time in getting the decision right (he no longer works regulary) and despite all the odds favoring him luck and a layed back-approach worked this time better.

Krugman had recently an entry on the issue in general. Kahnemann argues in a similar way. Obviously the discussion is about certain complex topics with a lot of uncertainty. In other areas expert knowledge and insider knowhow are golden.

P.S: The German Wiki does have a decent overview of the history of E.ON. Needless to say that the Jahresabschluss is full of info. Maybe we could start a bit more detailed European discussion about it. In general I would say that Europe-wide the utilities are trading for low prices. The big question is of course if the those prices are low enough under their long-term value to give you a good margin of security.

The 'Kupon' you get on bonds of solid German enterprises is really low indeed. Offers deemed decent to good are snatched up quickly by the big boys. That over 2% more are a problem for Italian companies in competition with German ones is no surprise.

__________________
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

Maybe we could start a bit more detailed European discussion about it. In general I would say that Europe-wide the utilities are trading for low prices. The big question is of course if the those prices are low enough under their long-term value to give you a good margin of security.

Good post, thanks for the links, and I am willing to discuss further. Will have to do some additional reading and thinking and will get back to you in a week or so.

The sharply reduced dependence on Persian Gulf oil is raising questions about whether the Carter Doctrine should still apply.

Quote:

If protecting the Persian Gulf oil supply doesn't matter so much anymore, would that justify some U.S. disengagement from the Middle East?

Persian Gulf oil will remain important, and somebody will need to secure those Gulf shipping lanes. China, poised to become the No. 1 buyer of Gulf oil, is now benefiting from the huge U.S. security presence in the region. Perhaps the United States could turn over security responsibilities in the Persian Gulf to China.

"Strategically, that's not something we really want to do," says Herberg. "But in an oil sense they are now the prime beneficiary of this. [They are a] free rider on these free sea lanes the U.S. keeps open. So how do you manage that conflict?"

Quote:

"It's insane that we have the 5th Fleet of the U.S. Navy tied up there to protect oil that ends up in China and Europe," T. Boone Pickens, the energy tycoon, was quoted as saying recently in Parade magazine.

There is gobs of public info out there and it is my sense that not all of that info gets to the market instantaneously nor efficiently (flying in the face of some of the tenants of the efficient market hypothesis ).

Firn has rightly recommended Benjamin Graham's book the Intelligent Investor as worth a read. I second his recommendation...Mr. Market sometimes drops by with some craaazzzyyy pricing on stocks...enough value that one can later sell those same stocks and cover one's beer and pretzels expenses for the year.

Surferbeetle, the people who buy or sell shares (and stuff) define the market price, not the ones who hold it.
The people who buy or sell can also be expected to have recently paid attention to news more than the holders.

I understand others people who read financial news or listen to them on TV believe they have info, but this info is basically already priced in. Whatever unsystematic distortion happens between info and conclusion tends to affect both you and all the others (buyers, sellers) on average. The market price is already aggregated including the info you get from reading or watching public info.
To believe that you get an advantage from such sources is about the same as to believe that you can process the info better than the one you're trading with. There's little reason to believe this to be systematically true.

Professionals who spend 60 hrs/week with consuming, discussing and digesting publicly and non-publicly available information on a narrow segment of the market get rich if they're correct more than 51% of the time. It's in my opinion delusional to believe you can beat your trading partner this way.

Or in another way: It's like believing that you can make profit in the betting market for sports because you are watching sports matches.

Focus on avoiding systemic risks and on keeping fees small instead and enjoy life by not looking at your shares' development or useless financial "news" more than monthly or quarterly.
A more thorough analysis makes only sense if you've got enough capital to diversify AND justify the expenses of a thorough analysis of a specific company, preferably a Ltd.

Savings/investing work is limited to low cost index funds only, and I am more on the cash side of late due to my concerns with our geopolitical situation. For fun, relaxation, and intellectual exercise I have about ten stocks which I follow and trade in from time to time. My limit is 'beer & pretzels' money only... if it all goes bad I can walk away without a glance back at what I placed on the table. E.ON is not one of these stocks since I have little or no knowledge regarding Euro utilities.

Agree with you regarding the value of much of what passes for for 'news'.

Regarding the efficient market hypothesis, what you state tracks with what I was taught in school and what I read in many of my various text & reference books. I am a bit of a heretic on this topic however as theory does not always appear to track with what I experience in the field. Let's just say that asymmetry exists....

A Vanguard research paper issued in July 2012 found that the lump-sum approach has historically outperformed the dollar-cost method in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. But a close look at the study's underlying assumptions reinforces the idea that there are compelling arguments for both investing methods.

It is always nice to see some contra given. Anyway I will post the latest three trades, at least the price for which I got hopefully more value. Note that this concerns the small part of the portfolio wich is directly invested in equities. The far bigger equity part is in index funds, mostly of the (physical) ETF type.

E.ON: ~15
HP: ~10
Xerox: ~5

Buying fees are roughly 0.5%, portfolio fees 0.1%. Prices in €. Trades happened in the last two weeks. Obviously the sample is (too) small but it will be easier to manage.

We will see how things go in a couple of years. Hopefully we will not have forgotten this thread, but maybe this might be a good thing as good news doesn't create as many posts.

P.S: I just noted the almost perfect price scale of 5-10-15. Funny.

__________________
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

A large tanker carrying liquified natural gas (LNG) is set to become the first ship of its type to sail across the Arctic.

Quote:

Built in 2007 with a strengthened hull, the Ob River can carry up to 150,000 cubic metres of gas. The tanker was loaded with LNG at Hammerfest in the north of Norway on 7 November and set sail across the Barents Sea. It has been accompanied by a Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker for much of its voyage.

Quote:

"Nineteen thousand ships went through the Suez canal last year; around 40 went through the northern sea route. There's a huge difference."

In Europe the evolution of interest rates for governments bonds has been very different with several countries seeing very high levels and in some cases no access to funding. The fear was due to probability of default and potentially an exit from the Euro area, not so much inflation. But after a volatile period and following the statement of Mario Draghi supporting the Euro (no action yet) and the more recent agreement for funding for Greece and Spain, interest rates are coming back to levels which are not far from the historical average during the Euro period (and significantly lower than what these countries faced before joining the Euro).

With Monti in trouble the situation is better the quite a few feared. Anyway it is very difficult indeed to forecast something in Italian politics. I would hardly be surprised by the most surprising events.

---

Looked again at those 3 stocks:

Xerox 5.38 up from roughly 5
HP 10.77 up from roughly 10 - bough another third under 9.5
E.ON 14.04 down from roughly 15 - invested over a third today at +- that.

GDF Suez lost over 10% today and highlights some general problems of the European utility market but also some specific French ones. In this case the French government is a major shareholder and limits the price GDF (and other companies) can ask for it's gas. GDF is fighting a legal battle

After having watch the stock for quite some time I invested in it today, at roughly 15. Certainly we have seen quite a bit of volatility this year and the 10% + drops in a single day of E.ON and GDF are amazing for such huge and long-standing companies. We will see in a couple of years, I actually was mostly interested in buying some more. Of course with the general development of the market the balance sheet lof this year looks quite bright.

__________________
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

There was certainly trouble and Monti chose to act on his own by going to Napolitano....

Anyway the manovri di palazzo and with the parties have long started. The center-left candidate wants for good or not so noble reasons no "political" Monti, who could return as a leader of the center or center-right. He should conserve himself as technical choice for times of need.

Piazza Affari was hard hit, the spread has also grown. While I have to give the the report a closer look everybody knows that Italy is no country for young women, even less so then for young men.

__________________
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

By the year 2030, for the first time in history, a majority of the world's population will be out of poverty. Middle classes will be the most important social and economic sector. Asia will enjoy the global power status it last had in the Middle Ages, while the 350-year rise of the West will be largely reversed. Global leadership may be shared, and the world is likely to be democratizing.

But the planet may also be racked by wars over food and water, with the environment threatened by climate change. Individuals, equipped with new lethal and disruptive technologies, will be capable of causing widespread harm. Global economic crises could well be recurring.

It all depends on how events develop over the next decade, according to a new report, Global Trends 2030 [PDF], prepared by the National Intelligence Council, comprising the 17 U.S. government intelligence agencies.

Quote:

Global political leadership, however, is likely to be diffused, with no single country or alliance playing a dominant role.

"A growing number of diverse state and nonstate actors, as well as subnational actors, such as cities, will play important governance roles," the report says. "The increasing number of players needed to solve major transnational challenges — and their discordant values — will complicate decisionmaking."